This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

Cincinnati Enquirer: Another sign that the $300 million in lost worker's compensation investments will shape Ohio's political future, is the recent inclusion of Coingate in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on the Internet. [1]

"Gov. Bob Taft asked the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday for a "protective order" to prevent a Democratic state senator from questioning him and Chief of Staff Jon Allison under oath about failed investments at the Bureau of Workers' Compensation.

Kathleen Trafford, a Columbus attorney hired by the attorney general's office to represent Mr. Taft, said the sole issue in the lawsuit filed by state Sen. Marc Dann, a Youngstown-area Democrat, is whether reports to the governor from his high-ranking aides are public records under Ohio law.

Saying the high court has pledged a "full and speedy" resolution of the lawsuit, Ms. Trafford wrote that Mr. Dann's plan to depose Mr. Taft and five other current and former high-ranking aides could set a "precedent for misusing public records complaints as inquisitory tools for personal or political purposes."

Mr. Dann, who also is an attorney, said that charge was "absurd." He said the records could provide more details about why up to $13 million is missing from the state's investment in rare-coin funds controlled by Tom Noe and why the state lost $215 million in just a few months in a high-risk hedge fund managed by Mark D. Lay of MDL Capital Management.

Fred Gittes, a Columbus attorney representing Mr. Dann, had scheduled depositions today for Mr. Taft and five others: chief of staff Jon Allison; former chief of staff Brian Hicks, now a lobbyist and consultant; James Conrad, former administrator of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation; former bureau official and Taft aide James Samuel, and Mark Nedved, the bureau's lobbyist.

But those depositions are on hold until the Supreme Court resolves the state's request for a "protective order," Mr. Gittes said.

Mr. Dann is asking the high court to order Mr. Taft to release correspondence dating to 1999 from Mr. Conrad and from Mr. Samuel, a former bureau official who in 2003 became the governor's liaison with the bureau.

Mr. Taft's chief legal counsel has said the records are exempt from the public records law because of executive privilege. Mr. Dann has said executive privilege does not exist in Ohio law.

Mr. Gittes said Mr. Taft must be deposed because only he can say how he "evaluates or uses" correspondence and weekly reports from high-ranking aides and whether he ever waives that privilege by discussing it outside the office with political advisers.

In her request for a "protective order," Ms. Trafford said the depositions would "invade the executive and deliberative process privileges of the governor."

Also yesterday, the attorney general's office filed a motion in U.S. district court to keep Ohio employers out of its lawsuit on behalf of the bureau against a failed Bermuda hedge fund.

Based on precedents dating to 1927, the motion argues that Ohio employers do not own the fund and have no legal interests in turning the state's case into a class-action lawsuit.

"I don't understand why the attorney general wouldn't want to have the people who are affected by this litigation at the table," said Jack Landskroner, a lawyer for Jacobson Excavation & Contracting, the Madison, Ohio, company attempting to participate in the case. "To try to preclude us concerns me because it eliminates any transparency."

Mr. Landskroner said the Ohio Supreme Court's recent decision to allow The Blade to view bureau records entitles Ohio employers to join in the lawsuit.

"The public has a vested interest in these dealings, and by that basis alone the employers have a vested interest in the case," he said."[2]

"Also, the State Auditor, Betty Montgomery, and Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, are conducting separate investigations: The Ohio inspector general’s office is investigating, state Auditor Betty Montgomery has announced a special audit, and the secretary of state’s office is scrutinizing Mr. Noe’s campaign contributions to GOP statewide and legislative candidates." (from a Toledo Blade article)

The articles in the Toledo Blade are "revealed" information so are pretty confusing, chronologically-speaking and the information is pretty time consuming to add and keep the flow of the article. Keep Noe's fundraising scandal separate for now--that looks like it might even warrant another page. When writing, try to remember the page is describing the facts of what happend, not revealing it like a newspaper would. I try to write it like little mini-stories in chronological order, none of this "it was revelead in..." I find it makes it much easier to read (though much harder to write). --Ben 20:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I was able to catalog about 80% of all of the coin images released during the sealed-bid auction period in March 2006. Did anyone else happen to download all of these images for posterity? If so, can you point a link in the article to your repository? I think some interested readers of this article might want to see some examples of the coins that were purchased. I would share my catalog if I had the webspace to do so... -- Tvgeek

As the article itself states "coingate" is a nickname for a scandal, and therefor not appropriately formal for an encyclopedia. If anyone supports or opposes moving the article to a more formal article name, please respond within the next 2-3 days. i kan reed 02:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia standard naming policy is to have articles be at the most common reasonable name for the article, not necessarily the most "formal" name. Thus Sonny Bono is at "Sonny Bono", not "Salvatore Phillip 'Sonny' Bono", for example. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. --User At Work 22:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks, I think that's good reason to leave it where it is. i kan reed 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's another vote for leaving it as is. John Broughton | Talk 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The image Image:Thomas W Noe.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

I have just modified 2 external links on Coingate scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}}(last update: 1 May 2018).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.